What was missing in Australia’s $1.9 billion infrastructure announcement


Virginia Barbour, Queensland University of Technology

When we think about infrastructure it’s most often about bridges or roads – or, as in this week’s federal government AU$1.9 billion National Research Infrastructure announcement, big science projects. These are large assets that can be seen and applied in a tangible way.

It’s not hard to get excited over money that will support imaging of the Earth, or the Atlas of Living Australia.

But important as these projects are, there’s a whole set of infrastructure that rarely gets mentioned or noticed: “soft” infrastructure. These are the services, policies or practices that keep academic research working and, now, open.

Soft infrastructure was not featured in this week’s announcement linked to budget 2018.




Read more:
Budget 2018: when scientists make their case effectively, politicians listen


Ignored infrastructure

An absence of attention paid to soft infrastructure isn’t just the case in Australia, it’s true globally. This is despite the fact that such infrastructure is core to running the hard infrastructure projects.

For example, the Open SSL software library – which is key to the security of most websites – has just a handful of paid individuals who work on it. It’s supported by fragile finances. That’s a pretty frightening thought. (There’s another issue in that researchers doing this work get no academic credit for their efforts, but that’s a topic for another time.)

There are other high profile, globally used, open science infrastructures that also exist hand to mouth. The Directory of Open Access journals which began at Lund University relies entirely on voluntary donations from supporting members and on occasional sponsorship.

Similarly, Sherpa Romeo – the open database of publishers’ policies on copyright and self-archiving – came out of projects at Nottingham and Loughborough Universities in the UK.

In some ways these projects’ high visibility is part of their problem. It’s assumed that they are already funded, so no-one takes responsibility for funding them themselves – the dilemma of collective action.




Read more:
Not just available, but also useful: we must keep pushing to improve open access to research


Supporting open science

Other even more nebulous types of soft infrastructure include the development and oversight of standards that support open science. One example of this is the need to ensure that the metadata (the essential descriptors that tell you for example where a sample that’s collected for research came from and when, or how it relates to a wider research project or publication) are consistent. Without consistency of metadata, searching for research, making it openly available or linking it together is much less efficient, if not impossible.

Of course there are practices in place at individual institutions as well as national organisations. The soon-to-be-combined organisations -Australian National Data Service, the National eResearch Collaboration Tools and Resources project and Research Data Services (ANDS-Nectar-RDS) – are supported by national infrastructure funding. These provide support for data-heavy research (including for example the adoption of FAIR – Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable standards for data).

But without coherent national funding and coordination, specifically for open science initiatives, we won’t get full value from the physical infrastructure just funded.




Read more:
How the insights of the Large Hadron Collider are being made open to everyone


What we need

What’s needed now? First, a specific recognition of the need for cash to support this open, soft infrastructure. There are a couple of models for this.

In an article last year it was suggested that libraries (but this could equally be funders – public or philanthropic) should be committing around 2.5% of their budget to support open initiatives. There are some international initiatives that are developing specific funding models – SCOSS for Open Science Services and NumFocus for software.

But funding on its own is not enough: we need a coordinated national approach to open scholarship – making research available for all to access through structures and tools that are themselves open and not proprietary.

Though there are groups that are actively pushing forward initiatives on open scholarship in Australia – such as the Australasian Open Access Strategy Group, the Council of Australian University Librarians, and the Learned Academies as well as the ARC and NHMRC who have open access policies – there is no one organisation with the responsibility to drive change across the sector. The end result is inadequate key infrastructure – for example, for interoperability between research output repositories.

We also need coherent policy. The government recognised a need for national and states policies on open access in its response to the 2016 Productivity Commission Inquiry on Intellectual Property, but as yet no policy has appeared.




Read more:
Universities spend millions on accessing results of publicly funded research


It’s reasonable to ask whether in the absence of a national body that’s responsible for developing and implementing an overall approach, what the success of a policy on its own would be. Again, there are international models that could be used.

Sweden has a Government Directive on Open Access, and a National Body for Coordinating Open Access chaired by the Vice-chancellor of Stockholm University.

The Netherlands has a National Plan for Open Science with wide engagement, supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. In that country, the Secretary of State, Sander Dekker, has been a key champion.

The EU has had a long commitment to open science, underscored recently by the appointment of a high-level envoy with specific responsibility for open science, Robert-Jan Smits.

Private interests might take over

Here’s the bottom line: national coordinated support for the soft infrastructure that supports open science (and thus the big tangible infrastructure projects announced) is not just a “nice to have”.

One way or another, this soft infrastructure will get built and adopted. If it’s not done in the national interest, for-profit companies will step into the vacuum.

We risk replicating the same issues we have now in academic publishing – which is in the hands of multi-billion dollar companies that report to their shareholders, not the public. It’s clear how well that is turning out – publishers and universities globally are in stand offs over the cost of publishing services, which continue to rise inexorably, year on year.


The Conversation


Read more:
Publisher pushback puts open access in peril


Virginia Barbour, Director, Australasian Open Access Strategy Group, Queensland University of Technology

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Advertisements

Labor would deliver bigger surpluses than the Coalition: Bowen


Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen on Wednesday will promise a Labor government would deliver bigger cumulative budget surpluses than the government over the forward estimates and substantially bigger surpluses over a decade.

Outlining the fiscal parameters the opposition will take to the election, Bowen will repeat that the ALP would achieve budget balance in the same year as the government – 2019-20.

He will also undertake that the majority of the savings raised from the ALP’s revenue measures over a decade would go to budget repair and paying off debt.

Bowen will insert a qualifier, saying that the pledges are on the basis of the budget figures released last week. If the government announced “a new secret policy that is fundamentally unfair and is an attack on working people, then we reserve the right to address that”.

Detailed figures of the full impact of Labor policies would be announced before the election, “but we are announcing today that the net result of those policies will be a better budget bottom line in the short term and bigger surpluses in the long term,” Bowen will tell the National Press Club.

He will also say that until a Labor government achieved a strong surplus it would be guided by the principles of

… repairing in the budget in a way that was fair, and did not place the heaviest burden on the vulnerable;

… more than offsetting new spending with savings and revenue measures;

… putting to the budget bottom line any positive changes in revenue and spending that resulted from economic changes.

Bowen will attack the government for not budgeting for larger surpluses.

“The whiff of a surplus, not reaching at least 1% of GDP until 2026-27, does not adequately protect Australia against the potential roiling seas of international uncertainty. Australia needs bigger surpluses, sooner than the government is scheduling,” he will say.

“We can’t afford to let the next four years go to waste in the efforts for a healthier, safer budget surplus”. He will point to the Coalition’s 2013 commitment to a surplus of at least 1% of GDP by 2023-24, criticising the the government for its having “watered down their fiscal rigour with regular monotony”.

Bowen will also emphasise the long term risks of the government’s seven year tax package.

“The government has the most expensive and growing component of their tax package coming in in six years’ time, based on the assumption the good times roll on for another decade.” This was “a budget that bakes in future tax cuts in six years’ time worth tens of billions of dollars, when the revenue may not turn up to fund them”.

Bowen will say that by making a series of tough decisions on revenue measures as well as opposing the corporate tax cuts, Labor is setting out to deal faster than the government with debt and deficit and to fund policies that are important for economic growth, including investment in education.

The ConversationHe will also announce a panel to review Labor’s costings, which have been done by the Parliamentary Budget Office. Its members are Bob Officer, emeritus professor at Melbourne University; Mike Keating, former head of the finance and prime minister’s departments, and James Mackenzie, a fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Institute of Company Directors. These three undertook a similar task before the 2016 election.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Post-budget poll wrap: Labor has equal best Newspoll budget result, gains in Ipsos, but trails in Longman



File 20180515 122916 1upszc9.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
While this is Malcolm Turnbull’s 32nd consecutive Newspoll loss as PM, the past two have been narrow losses.
AAP/Ellen Smith

Adrian Beaumont, University of Melbourne

This week’s Newspoll, conducted May 10-13 from a sample of 1,730, gave Labor a 51-49 lead, unchanged from three weeks ago. Primary votes were 39% Coalition (up one), 38% Labor (up one), 9% Greens (steady) and 6% One Nation (down one).

This Newspoll is Malcolm Turnbull’s 32nd successive loss as PM, two more than Tony Abbott. However, the past two have been narrow losses.

The total vote for Labor and the Greens was up one point to 47%, while the total for the Coalition and One Nation was steady at 45%. The gain for the left would normally result in a gain after preferences, but rounding probably helped the Coalition again.




Read more:
Poll wrap: Labor’s Newspoll lead narrows federally and in Victoria


39% (up three) were satisfied with Turnbull, and 50% (down three) were dissatisfied, for a net approval of -11, Turnbull’s highest net approval since the final pre-election Newspoll in July 2016. Bill Shorten’s net approval was down two points to -22. Turnbull led Shorten as better PM by 46-32; this is Turnbull’s clearest better PM lead since February.

Newspoll asks three questions after every budget: whether the budget was good or bad for the economy, good or bad for you personally, and whether the opposition would have delivered a better budget.

The best news for Labor was on the third question, where it only trailed by seven points, equal to their deficit after the badly perceived 2014 budget. According to The Poll Bludger, Labor trailed by more during all of the Howard government’s budgets.

This budget was seen as good for the economy by 41-26, and good for you personally by 29-27. The Poll Bludger says it is fifth out of 31 budgets covered by Newspoll on personal impact, but only slightly above average on the economy.

Turnbull led Shorten by 48-31 on best to handle the economy (51-31 in December 2017). Treasurer Scott Morrison led his shadow Chris Bowen 38-31 on best economic manager. By 51-28, voters thought Labor should support the government’s seven-year tax cut package.

Turnbull has delivered a well-received budget, while Shorten’s credibility took a hit after four Labor MPs were kicked out over the citizenship fiasco.

Voters were not sympathetic to politicians who held dual citizenships. By 51-38, they thought such politicians should be disqualified from federal parliament (44-43 in August). By 46-44, voters would oppose a referendum to change the Constitution to allow dual citizens to become MPs.

A key question is whether Turnbull’s ratings bounce will be sustained. The PM’s net approval and the government’s two party vote are strongly correlated, so the Coalition should do better if Turnbull’s ratings are good. Past ratings spikes for Turnbull have not been sustained.

While people on low incomes receive a tax cut, it will not be implemented by withholding less tax from pay packets. Instead, people will need to wait until they file their tax returns after July 2019 to receive their lump sum tax offsets. As the next federal election is very likely to be held by May 2019, this appears to be a political mistake.

In last week’s Essential, 39% thought the Australian economy good and 24% poor. While Australia ran large trade surpluses in the first three months of this year, the domestic economy is not looking as good as it did in 2017 – see my personal website for more.

Ipsos: 54-46 to Labor (53-47 respondent allocated)

An Ipsos poll for the Fairfax papers, conducted May 9-12 from a sample of 1,200, gave Labor a 54-46 lead by 2016 election preferences, a two-point gain for Labor since early April. Primary votes were 37% Labor (up three), 36% Coalition (steady), 11% Greens (down one) and 5% One Nation (down three).

Newspoll is no longer using last-election preferences, so it seems better to compare Ipsos’ respondent allocated preferences with Newspoll, not the last election preferences. By respondent allocated preferences, Ipsos was 53-47 to Labor, a three-point gain for Labor.

Ipsos is bouncier than Newspoll, and the Greens’ support is higher. If you compare Ipsos’ respondent allocated two party vote with Newspoll, the difference is diminished.

Turnbull had a 51-39 approval rating (47-43 in April). This is Turnbull’s best rating in Ipsos since April 2016; Ipsos gives Turnbull his strongest ratings of any pollster. Shorten’s net approval was up three points to -12. Turnbull led Shorten by 52-32 (52-31 in April).

By 39-33, voters thought the budget was fair (42-39 after the 2017 budget). By 38-25, voters thought they would be better off, the highest “better off” figure in Nielsen/Ipsos history since 2006. However by 57-37, voters thought the government should have used its extra revenue to pay off debt, rather than cutting taxes.

Queensland Galaxy: 52-48 to federal Coalition, 53-47 to state Labor

A Queensland Galaxy poll, conducted May 9-10 from a sample of 900 for The Courier Mail, gave the federal Coalition a 52-48 lead, unchanged since February, but a 2% swing to Labor since the 2016 election. Primary votes were 40% Coalition (down one), 33% Labor (up one), 10% Greens (steady) and 10% One Nation (up one). Primary vote changes would normally imply a gain for Labor, but this was lost in the rounding.

By 39-33, Queenslanders thought the budget was good for them personally, rather than bad. By 39-28, they thought the budget would be good for Queensland.

The state politics questions gave Queensland Labor a 53-47 lead, a one-point gain for Labor since February. Primary votes were 38% Labor (up one), 35% LNP (down one), 12% One Nation (up two) and 10% Greens (steady).

Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk had a 46-38 approval rating (44-38 previously). Opposition Leader Deb Frecklington had a 31-28 approval rating (29-25). Palaszczuk led Frecklington as better Premier 47-27 (42-31).

Longman ReachTEL: 53-47 to LNP

The Longman byelection is one of five that will be held soon. A ReachTEL poll, conducted May 10 from a sample of 1,280 for the left-wing Australia Institute, gave the LNP a 53-47 lead, about a 4% swing to the LNP since the 2016 election. Primary votes were 36.7% LNP, 32.5% Labor, 15.1% One Nation and 4.9% Greens.

ReachTEL is using respondent allocated preferences. The two party vote in this poll looks reasonable assuming One Nation preferences flow to the LNP.

National polls and the Queensland Galaxy poll show swings to Labor compared with the 2016 election. It would be highly unusual for a seat to swing so strongly to the Coalition when other polling shows a swing to Labor. In the past, seat polls have been far less reliable than national and state-wide polls.

In better byelection news for Labor, the Western Australian Liberals will not contest either Perth or Fremantle. Fremantle has a 7.5% margin with an incumbent recontesting, but Labor only holds Perth by a 3.3% margin with no incumbent.




Read more:
Centre Alliance’s Rebekha Sharkie most vulnerable at byelections forced by dual citizenship saga


Essential: 52-48 to Labor

This week’s Essential, conducted May 10-13 from a sample of 1,033, gave Labor a 52-48 lead, a one-point gain for the Coalition since last week. Primary votes were 38% Coalition (steady), 36% Labor (down one), 10% Greens (steady) and 7% One Nation (up one).

By 44-28, voters approved of the budget overall. 22% thought the tax cuts would make a difference to their household. 39% supported the tax cuts, with 30% wanting more spending on schools and hospitals and 18% preferring a reduction in government debt.

The ConversationBy 44-40, voters disagreed with giving higher income people larger tax cuts. By 79-14, voters agreed that those earning $200,000 should pay a higher tax rate than those earning $41,000.

Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Who are the wealthy retirees targeted in Labor’s plans?


Roger Wilkins, University of Melbourne

In Labor’s budget reply speech, Bill Shorten reaffirmed the plan to remove refundability of dividend imputation credits. His pitch was to Australian voters on lower and middle incomes, in which he pledged to look after the country’s ageing population:

We know that giving older Australians the security and dignity they deserve matters more than an $80 billion corporate tax cut.

The issue of whether or not retirees should be able to get a refund in dividend imputation has sparked considerable discussion of retirees’ income and wealth.

The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey shows that, overall, retired people tend to have lower incomes than the population as a whole, but higher wealth. This is because retirement typically involves ceasing employment and reducing income, while wealth tends to accumulate with age, at least up to the point of retirement, mainly due to paying off the mortgage and accumulating superannuation.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/L4l0L/2/

The different mix of income and wealth for retired and non-retired households means it’s not straightforward to compare their economic well-being. For example, the HILDA Survey data show that only 23% of retirees aged 60 and over have above-median incomes (compared with 50% of the population as a whole); but 62% have above-median household wealth.

That said, retirees are generally wealthy if they have both above-median household income and above-median household wealth. With this definition, 20% of retirees aged 60 and over are wealthy. This compares with approximately 28% of the Australian population as a whole.

What does retirement wealth look like?

Among retirees aged 60 and over, wealthy retirees are on average about two years younger than other retirees, having an average age of 71.8. Nearly 97% of wealthy retirees own their home, compared with 76% of other retirees.

These retirees have net wealth in 2014 (when wealth was last measured by the HILDA survey) averaging over A$2.4 million at today’s prices.

While wealthy retirees have high average holdings of superannuation, investment property and other investments, the home is still the most important component of their wealth. The home is also the most important asset for other retirees, but in 2014 it was worth an average of only A$400,000 (at today’s prices) for these retirees, compared with A$800,000 for wealthy retirees.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ILAqJ/3/

Wealthy retirees get most of their income from superannuation and other investments, although government benefits (mostly the Age Pension) nonetheless average over A$11,000 per wealthy retired household. For other retirees, the Age Pension is the dominant income source, averaging A$24,000 per household.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/KNwU3/2/

The HILDA survey data indicates that both wealthy and other retirees on average pay little income tax – A$4,256 for wealthy retirees and only A$94 for other retirees. Indeed, less than 30% of wealthy retiree households, and only 5% of other retiree households, are estimated to actually pay any income tax.

Moreover, the data show that 42% of wealthy retirees, and 22% of other retirees, have negative income tax because of dividend imputation credits received on their holdings of Australian shares. This does not take into account taxes and imputation credits on dividends received by superannuation funds.

Given the tax-free status of superannuation in people’s “retirement phase” (albeit now only on the first A$1.6 million), it’s likely that more than 42% of wealthy retirees, and more than 22% of other retirees, effectively have negative income taxes.

The ConversationWhether you consider Labor’s plan good or bad policy, given its exemption of pensioners, it is clear that its impact will be most acutely felt by wealthy retirees.

Roger Wilkins, Professorial Research Fellow and Deputy Director (Research), HILDA Survey, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Vital Signs: how inflation in China and the US could affect Australia


Richard Holden, UNSW

Vital Signs is a regular economic wrap from UNSW economics professor and Harvard PhD Richard Holden (@profholden). Vital Signs aims to contextualise weekly economic events and cut through the noise of the data affecting global economies.

This week: How the economies of China and the United States will affect what happens in our own.


Business conditions in Australia have been strong enough to see a surge in company tax revenue that led Treasurer Scott Morrison to outline cuts to personal income taxes over the next seven years in Tuesday’s federal budget.

Those same robust business conditions were reflected in the National Australia Bank Business Conditions Index which was up sharply in April to 21 points (up 6 points from the previous month). This puts it at the highest level in twenty years.

NAB chief economist Alan Oster said of the figures:

The record high in the April survey simply reinforces what has been evident since the middle of last year, that business activity in Australia is robust…I see the business survey as indicative as why the government appears to be rolling in corporate tax revenue.

In the United States, the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey in March showed a surge of job openings – up 472,000 to 6.55 million. That was the highest reading on record. It also showed more workers voluntarily leaving jobs. This is generally regarded as strong sign of worker confidence and is indicative of looming wage inflation.

The US Producer Price Index rose just 0.1% in April according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, much lower than estimates of 0.3%, the level of growth in March. This put the index up 2.6% over the last 12 months, down from 3.0%.

This eased concerns about rising inflation that have been a major focus of discussions about interest rates at the Federal Open Market Committee at recent meetings. That could make the Fed less likely to raise rates quickly, though the tightening path still seems likely.

All eyes will be on the May 10, inflation statistics release to see if there is less heat than the Fed has seemed to fear, especially with unemployment now running at 3.9%.

Adding to this, China’s Producer Price Index dropped by 0.2% from February, putting the annual rate at 3.1%, the weakest level since October 2016.

Economists were looking for an annual increase of 3.2%, down from 3.7% in February. Because China is such a significant global exporter, the lower Producer Price Index should ease any inflationary pressures in other countries. In other words, China is exporting less inflation.

China’s Consumer Price Index actually fell 1.1% last month, putting the annual rate at positive 2.1%. Last month’s figures in part reflect the timing of Chinese New Year, so one shouldn’t read too much into them. On the other hand, any softening of the Chinese economy is a big deal for Australian exporters and our economy generally.

The coming months overseas will be very revealing. We will get a better handle on whether there are genuine inflationary pressures in the US – or whether perhaps there is a new normal. That will affect short-term interest rates, but also says something about where those rates are likely to move back to in the cycle.

We will also get a better fix on the Chinese economy, at least in terms of growth numbers. What still remains opaque is the health of China’s financial sector. That remains a significant concern.

Both the US and China will factor heavily into two key things in Australia. The first is, of course, the RBA’s interest rate decisions later this year. The second is the key number in the federal budget – the 3.0% real GDP growth assumption that underpins the forecast return to surplus and the rationale for the personal income tax plan.

The ConversationAt least for the next few months, what happens overseas will be more important for the Australian economy than domestic factors per se.

Richard Holden, Professor of Economics and PLuS Alliance Fellow, UNSW

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Research check: we still don’t have proof that cutting company taxes will boost jobs and wages



File 20180510 185500 guowse.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
There still isn’t clear research showing company tax cuts will increase employment or wages.
Shutterstock

Ross Guest, Griffith University

If you read these headlines you might think we finally have proof that cutting company taxes will boost employment and investment:

These stories are based on analysis of the 2015 company tax cut by consultants AlphaBeta. But the study, as well as some of the media coverage of it, show a worrying misunderstanding of how company tax cuts work.

Simply comparing companies that receive a tax cut with those that don’t isn’t the right methodology to conclude that the 2015 tax cuts created more employment or higher wages.




Read more:
There isn’t solid research or theory to support cutting corporate taxes to boost wages


Cutting taxes lets companies keep more of their profits, allowing them to invest in new equipment and premises for example. The company then needs to hire more workers to work with these new assets. The newly created jobs require businesses to compete for workers and this increased demand pushes up wages across the entire economy.

Suppose a retail company gets a tax cut and opens a new store. It advertises for workers, many of whom are already employed by a rival store that didn’t get the tax cut. The first company will need to offer the workers higher wages to entice them away. The rival store will need to consider matching the wages in order to keep the workers.

In other words, even workers in companies that don’t receive the tax cut should see a wage rise.

Going through the AlphaBeta report

In 2015, the federal government cut the tax rate from 30% to 28.5% for businesses with less than A$2 million in revenue. Eligible businesses saved around A$2,940 on average because of the tax cut.

AlphaBeta used transaction data from 70,000 businesses to compare businesses just below the A$2 million threshold to companies that were just above it.

The analysis looked at the differences between the two groups of firms in terms of whether they hired new workers, invested in their businesses, increased worker wages, or kept some of the cash as a reserve.

AlphaBeta chalked any differences between companies that received the tax cut and those that didn’t to the company tax cuts.




Read more:
The full story on company tax cuts and your hip pocket


As reported in The Australian, AlphaBeta found that companies that received the tax cut increased their employee headcount by 2.6%. The companies that didn’t receive the cut increased employment by just 2.1%.

This difference turned out to be “statistically significant”, meaning it is very unlikely to be the result of random chance.

As the Sydney Morning Herald pointed out, AlphaBeta also concluded that 51% of the tax cut was kept as cash, 27% went towards new investment, but only 3% was paid to workers in higher wages.

In other words, wages increased by just A$1.44 per week. This is not only a small amount, it was also found to be not statistically significant.

Problematic methodology

The main issue with this study’s methodology is actually noted by AlphaBeta in the report itself (and echoed in the coverage by the ABC and Sydney Morning Herald).

The problem is that we cannot draw any conclusions about the effect of company tax cuts on jobs or wages by studying a bunch of firms that received them and another bunch that did not, even if the firms are only slightly different.

This is because, as noted above, the effect of company tax cuts on jobs and wages take place in the entire labour market. An increase in demand for labour flows through to all business, and therefore, so do higher wages.

So we should not expect to see wages rising only in those businesses that receive the tax cuts. The finding that an increase in wages is small and insignificant is exactly what we would expect to see from this study.

Another problem is that we do not know whether the characteristics of the companies in AlphaBeta’s sample. Were some industries with particularly pronounced employment or wage increases over represented in one group but not the other, for instance?

Studying the effect of company tax cuts on employment and wages also requires a longer time period – sometimes years – and careful control of other factors affecting jobs and wages in some firms relative to others.

Blind review:

The analysis in this review is generally fair and reaches a sound conclusion regarding the AlphaBeta report. However, the logic behind company tax cut raising wages is somewhat simplified.

A cut in company tax lowers the costs of production and can flow to labour, capital (including equipment and buildings) and consumers. Economics tells us that who actually benefits from a tax cut depends on what is more responsive to the tax – labour, capital or output.

The lower production costs from a company tax cut can lead to greater output and lower prices as consumers buy more goods and services. This depends, of course, on how responsive consumers are to changes in price.

In the short-run labour is more mobile than capital, which is usually regarded as fixed. Therefore, in the short-run most of the benefit is borne by owners of capital (the companies) in the form of higher after-tax profits.

However, over the longer term, companies invest their after-tax profits in the business. So most of the benefit of the tax cut goes to workers though higher wages as the increased “capital stock” (such as equipment) makes labour more productive.

The ConversationIt follows that there is no reason to expect a significant increase in wages over a period of one or two years (as the AlphaBeta report covers). Indeed, such a result would be somewhat surprising. – Phil Lewis

Ross Guest, Professor of Economics and National Senior Teaching Fellow, Griffith University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Most of the benefits from the budget tax cuts will help the rich get richer


File 20180509 34015 7hqble.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1

Chris Samuel/Flickr, CC BY-SA

Robert Tanton, University of Canberra and Jinjing Li, University of Canberra

In the federal budget, Treasurer Scott Morrison promised tax cuts to all working Australians in the form of an offset and changes to tax income thresholds. But our analysis of Treasury data shows that while the government advertised these as payments to low and middle income Australians, most of the benefits would flow through to high income earners in future years.

If all of the stages of the tax plan passed parliament, there would be a sharp increase in benefits for people earning above A$180,000, due to the reduction of their marginal tax rate from 45% to 32.5%.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/QA4kF/3/

Taxes in most countries are progressive. This means that the more you earn, the higher your marginal rate (the additional amount you pay for each dollar earned).

There are good reasons for this – progressive tax systems mean those on a lower income pay a lower average tax rate, while those on higher incomes pay a higher average tax rate. This reduces income inequality – as you earn more, for each dollar you earn, you will pay more in tax than someone on a lower income.

With the 2018-19 budget, the proposal is for a “simpler” tax system from 2024-25. This means a reduced number of tax brackets, and a lower rate of 32.5% to those earning between A$87,001 and A$200,000.

Treasurer Scott Morrison said following the budget:

Well, you’ve still got a progressive tax system. That hasn’t changed. In fact, the percentage of people at the end of this plan, who are on the top marginal tax rate is actually slightly higher than what it is today.

However this new tax system from 2024-25 is less progressive than the current system. It means higher income inequality – the rich get more of the tax cuts than the poor.

As part of the new proposal, low and middle income earners get a tax offset in 2018-19, with high income earners getting very little. This part of the plan is progressive – more money goes to lower income earners.

However, by 2024-25, the tax cuts means high income earners gain A$7,225 per year, while those earning A$50,000 to A$90,000 gain A$540 per year, and those earning A$30,000 gain A$200 per year.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/iTzyr/3/

Of course, another factor of tax cuts is that they only benefit those who are employed. Tax cuts don’t benefit people like the unemployed, pensioners, students (usually young people) and those on disability support pensions.

The conversation Australians need to have is how we should be spending the revenue boost we are seeing over the next few years. We can either spend this windfall gain on benefits to high income earners, in the hope that this will flow through spending to everyone else; or maybe we should encourage young people into housing through an increase to the first home owners grant, or increased funding for our schools, universities and health system.

The ConversationWe’ve developed a budget calculator so you can see how your family is affected by the 2018 budget.

Robert Tanton, Professor, University of Canberra and Jinjing Li, Associate Professor, NATSEM, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Bill Shorten outbids Turnbull’s tax cut for lower and middle income earners



File 20180510 34018 1mu5a3k.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Shorten pledged to give bigger income tax cuts for 10 million taxpayers.
Lukas Coch/AAP

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Opposition leader Bill Shorten has launched a tax bidding war, promising to top the government’s tax relief for lower and middle income earners, as he prepares to fight a string of byelections in Labor seats.

The Labor alternative almost doubles the budget’s relief for these taxpayers, incorporating the early part of the government’s plan and then building on it.

Delivering his budget reply in Parliament on Thursday night, Shorten pledged to give bigger income tax cuts for 10 million taxpayers. Some four million would get A$398 a year more than the $530 under the government’s plan.

Labor’s “Working Australians Tax Refund”, would cost $5.8 billion more than the government’s plan over the forward estimates.

Labor’s alternative comes as debate intensifies about the latter stage of the government’s plan, when a flattening of the tax scale would give substantial benefit to high income earners.

The ALP hardened its position against that change as modelling cast doubt on its fairness. The opposition launched a Senate inquiry which will report mid June on the tax legislation, introduced into parliament on Wednesday.

The government says it will not split the bill, which it wants through before parliament rises for its winter break, but will be under pressure to do so including from the crossbench.

Under Shorten’s proposal, the ALP would support the government’s budget tax cut in 2018-19. Once in power, it would then deliver bigger tax cuts from July 1 2019, when it began the refund.

In Labor’s first budget “we will deliver a bigger better and fairer tax cut for 10 million working Australians. Almost double what the government offered on Tuesday”, Shorten told parliament.

The Labor plan would give all taxpayers earning under $125,000 a year a larger tax cut than they would get under the budget plan.

In a speech heavy on the theme of fairness, Shorten said: “At the next election there will be a very clear choice on tax. Ten million Australians will pay less tax under Labor”.

He also pitched his budget reply directly at the campaign for the byelections.




Read more:
View from The Hill: ‘Super Saturday’ voters get first say on tax


“This is my challenge to the Prime Minister. If you think that your budget is fair, if you think that your sneaky cuts can survive scrutiny, put it to the test. Put it to the test in Burnie, put it to the test in Fremantle and in Perth.

“I will put my better, fairer, bigger income tax cut against yours. I’ll put my plans to rescue hospitals and fund Medicare against your cuts. I’ll put my plans to properly fund schools against your cuts and I’ll put my plan to boost wages against your plan to cut penalty rates and I’ll put my plans for 100,000 TAFE places against your cuts to apprenticeships and training and I’ll fight for the ABC against your cuts.”

In the Labor model, a teacher earning $65,000 would get tax relief of $928 a year, $398 more than the $530 offered by the government.

A married couple, with one partner earning $90,000 and the other $50,000 would receive a tax cut of $1855, making them $796 a year better off under Labor than under the government.

Shorten said Labor could afford the tax cuts it proposed because it wasn’t giving $80 billion to big business and the big four banks. Also, it had earlier made hard choices on revenue measures.




Read more:
Politics podcast: Mathias Cormann and Jim Chalmers on Budget 2018


An ALP government could deliver “the winning trifecta” – “a genuine tax cut for middle and working class Australians; proper funding for schools, hospitals and the safety net; and paying back more of Australia’s national debt faster”.

Shorten said that the Liberals were proposing to radically rewrite the tax rules in their seven year plan. Research had revealed that $6 in every $10 would go to the wealthiest 20% of Australians, he said .

“Very quickly, this is starting to look like a Mates Rates tax plan”.

“And at a time of flat wages, rising inequality and a growing sense of unfairness in the community”.

Other initiatives he announced include:

· A plan for skills, TAFE and apprentices costing $473 million over the forward estimates.

· Abolition of the cap on university places, re-instating Labor’s demand driven system, at a cost of $140 million over the forward estimates.

· Reversing cuts to hospitals and establishing a Better Hospitals Fund, seeing an extra $2.8 billion flow to public hospitals. This would cost $764 million over the budget period.

· Invest $80 million to boost the number of eligible MRI machines and approve 20 new licences – which would mean 500,000 more scans funded by Medicare over the course of a first Labor budget.

The Conversation· Provide $25m to the Commonwealth Public Prosecutor to establish a Corporate Crime Taskforce. The Taskforce would deal with recommendations for criminal prosecution from the banking royal commission.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Budget 2018: when scientists make their case effectively, politicians listen


Alan Finkel, Office of the Chief Scientist

Budget 2018 confirms that the case for funding science is being heard in Canberra.

Science and research are integrated in the national objectives laid down in the treasurer’s speech: to create jobs, boost health and improve the liveability of communities.

Many of the measures appear to have origins in proposals advanced by the science community.




Read more:
Infographic: Budget 2018 at a glance


Lessons from Budget 2018

What lessons can we take from this year’s outcome? After two years in Canberra, I haven’t discovered a magic key to the Federal coffers. But here are my general observations.

Intrinsic value is not sufficient

We can’t assume that the broad public support for science will translate into support for specific proposals unless we do the work to explain the benefits, including more jobs and better health.

Being intrinsically valuable is not sufficient. Clarity about what we can deliver is essential when science is competing with spending proposals with obvious and immediate benefits – like more hospital beds.




Read more:
Science isn’t broken, but we can do better: here’s how


Politicians need help

It helps to remember that most politicians aren’t experts in science policy. I’ve wrestled for years with the term “national research infrastructure”. People I talk to outside the research sector simply don’t understand it. A small change to saying “national research facilities” turns the lights on.

Show outcomes

It’s important for politicians to see the outcomes of public investment. They see the dollar figures in the budget papers but they don’t necessarily connect the research breakthroughs they read about in the newspapers years later to the programs that made them possible. It is important to help local members, irrespective of their party, recognise the impact of previously funded programs working for Australians.

Review and communicate

Take stock of progress and give credit to what has been achieved to date before heading back into the arena for the next round. As custodians of public funds, researchers should be proud to share their achievements with the taxpayers who ultimately make them possible.




Read more:
Science Meets Parliament doesn’t let the rest of us off the hook


We’re all in this

Finally, I’ve always found politicians to be far more receptive to funding proposals when they see commitment from other quarters. It’s not just the Commonwealth that needs to step up. It’s business. It’s state and territory governments. It’s philanthropists.

If we reach out widely, we can strengthen our advocacy with new allies, and at the same time, help government to focus on the things that only government can do.

Below I highlight some key areas funded through Budget 2018.

Key science and technology items in Budget 2018, from the Australian Academy of Science.

National facilities

I welcome the emphasis on national-scale research facilities: I was Chair of the taskforce that delivered the 2016 National Research Infrastructure Roadmap.

This year’s budget invests $1.9 billion over 12 years, adding to the $1.5 billion over ten years committed to the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS) in 2015.

As shown below, $393.3 million is allocated in the next five years.


https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/WuSo1/2/


I am encouraged that the government has committed to review the investment plan every two years, in recognition of the importance of keeping this discussion firmly on the national agenda.

In addition to these funds, the budget acts on an urgent priority flagged in the Roadmap – high performance computing. $70 million for the Pawsey Supercomputing Centre in Perth adds to the $70 million previously committed to the National Computational Infrastructure in Canberra.

This builds on the $119 million announced for the European Southern Observatory in the previous budget.

National missions

A second notable feature is the follow-through on the national missions proposed in the Innovation and Science Australia (ISA) 2030 Plan.

The ISA mission to preserve the Great Barrier Reef is supported by $100 million in new investment for coral reef research and restoration projects, as part of a $500 million package announced last month.

The ISA mission to harness precision medicine and genomics to make Australia the healthiest nation in the world is backed with $500 million over the next ten years from the Medical Research Future Fund.




Read more:
Four ways precision medicine is making a difference


A scaffold for the genomics revolution was provided by the Australian Council of Learned Academies (ACOLA) in the recent Precision Medicine Horizon Scanning report, commissioned by the Commonwealth Science Council.

A forthcoming Horizon Scanning report, on artificial intelligence, will likewise inform the $30 million commitment to AI and machine learning in the 2018 budget. The funding includes a national ethics framework for AI – a welcome development that will position Australia well in the global AI standards debate.


https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/F4bnD/2/


More broadly, the budget acts on priorities that scientists have championed for years.

There is $41 million for a National Space Agency, including a $15 million fund for International Space Investment.


https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Xspft/2/


Over four years, $36 million will be provided for the Antarctic science program.

An amount of $4.5 million over four years is aimed to encourage more women into STEM education and careers, including a decadal plan for women in science.

With a focus on GPS technology, $225 million is allocated over four years to improve the accuracy of satellite navigation, and $37 million over three years for Digital Earth Australia. The goal of this funding is to make satellite data accessible for research, regional Australia and business.


https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/IUb7e/2/


There is also $20 million for an Asian Innovation Strategy, including an extension of the Australia-India Strategic Research Fund for four years.

Business innovation

In the business arena, changes to address integrity and additionality (that is, driving R&D to levels beyond “business as usual”) in the Research and Development Tax Incentive (RDTI) will reduce by an estimated $2.4 billion the money the scheme delivers to industry.

As one of the authors of the “3Fs” review of the RDTI – with Bill Ferris and John Fraser – I support the rebalancing of Australia’s business innovation budget. We are a global outlier in our heavy reliance on the indirect pull-through achieved through the tax system, instead of mission-driven direct investment.

The ConversationWith money recouped from the RDTI, scientists and research-intensive businesses should be making the case for more and better-targeted programs. Work remains to be done.

Alan Finkel, Australia’s Chief Scientist, Office of the Chief Scientist

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Budget 2018 was old news for energy policy – the next big headlines won’t come until July


David Blowers, Grattan Institute

As with many previous budgets, matters relating to energy and climate change were relegated to little more than a footnote in Treasurer Scott Morrison’s 2018 budget speech. And even the contents of that footnote told us nothing new.

This will bring relief to some, but cause frustration for others.

No money was set aside for a new coal-fired power station, despite the plaintive calls from the backbench in recent weeks. Nor was there any extra help for consumers struggling with sky-high electricity bills. There was no extra funding for the government’s Emissions Reduction Fund, but neither was money cut from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency or the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.




Read more:
A high price for policy failure: the ten-year story of spiralling electricity bills


What Budget 2018 did contain was three “announcables” – or, to put it more accurately, re-announcables.

First, Morrison declared that adoption of the federal government’s National Energy Guarantee would save the average household A$400 a year on its electricity bills. This is a bit of sleight of hand. Yes, modelling for the NEG shows that consumers’ bills will be on average A$400 lower than in 2017. But much of those savings will occur before the NEG comes into force in 2020.

Second, the treasurer declared that:

All energy sources and technologies should support themselves without taxpayer subsidies. The current subsidy scheme will be phased out from 2020.

The subsidies to which Morrison refers are from the Renewable Energy Target (RET). But it is hardly news that the scheme will to be phased out from 2020. This has been known for a decade. In fact, it’s a bit of a stretch to say the subsidies are being “phased out” at all.

After 2020, existing or new renewable energy projects will still be able to generate the same renewable energy certificates for every megawatt hour of electricity they produce, which they can then sell to retailers. The ability to generate certificates – and therefore generate a subsidy – will only end in 2030. The difference between the pre- and post-2020 RET is that there will be no annual increase in the target.

Finally, the treasurer pledged that the federal government will keep up the pressure on the big energy companies to give consumers better electricity and gas deals. This announcement is a signal as to when we can expect to see the next real action from the government on energy. It will come in July, when Morrison receives the report on the Retail Electricity Pricing Inquiry, which is being carried out by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).




Read more:
As the Libs claim South Australia, states are falling into line behind the National Energy Guarantee


The Turnbull government will be keen to act on the ACCC’s recommendations, given the looming federal election and the pressure on all politicians to find a way to cut voters’ energy bills.

The ConversationSo if we want some real headlines on energy, rather than some reheated footnotes, we will be waiting for a couple of months yet.

David Blowers, Energy Fellow, Grattan Institute

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.